How an unsigned rapper changed music | Hacker News Reader

How an unsigned rapper changed music

silentattraction.wordpress.com

209 pointsloso168 comments

A link to the actual song since none is provided in the story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

Macklemore/Ryan Lewis have a lot in common with modern startups. If you know Seattle, they have a small studio on Aurora. Software and shrewd attention to quality put them where they are today. It's been fun to watch their rise; I hope it continues to go so well.

(And, if Macklemore becomes mayor of Seattle in 2025, it'll be funny as hell.)

Pitch for their first album: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNXWOl81mBE

Giving away tickets on Craigslist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG30mzdOzoc

Kickstarteresqe promo video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGcm4lOr9CQ

Jumping on the Tiny Desk at NPR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrEJmvuKSwo

Documentary filmed just before Thrift Shop blew up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JErUzr8GSvU&t=10m14s

That link skips to the point where Macklemore and Ryan Lewis explain why they have stayed independent. They talk about record deals the exact same way startups talk about raising capital.

I'm sorry to bring this into the discussion (ducks), but does it really matter that this guy is white? Is he the first white, unsigned musician to hit #1?

I get that "white" rappers for the hip-hop ignorant are somewhat of a novelty but come on ... linkbait headline at it's worst IMHO.

Honestly, I agree with you. When I submitted the story to HN the title was "First unsigned artist in modern history to hit #1 on U.S. Charts" but HN changed it to the title on the blog. I wanted to highlight why I was posting it in the first place. Race can play an important part of a story but this time it kind of takes the focus off of the important part.

This isn't the first time an HN editor's change has made a post's title less relevant to the HN readership[1].

I'm really tired of it, but since it's all done behind the scenes, I don't know how to productively comment on it or suggest that they stop doing it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4994745 (and that link's parent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4993953)

If it is the title of the article how does that make it less relevant?

I think at times a different title may serve as a way for the poster to convey some relevant and appropriate commentary on why it is being posted.

Exactly!

Only pedants don't understand this.

I'd say because it's even more difficult for a white rapper to make it big in the industry. It's one more hurdle they had to overcome.

I don't think this was ever the case for white rappers.

Especially because of the content of his music, some of which is extremely progressive for the genre.

Probably because of Jay-Z start of his career selling CDs from his car and then making Roc-a-fella?

Pointing out that he's white is a nod to his status as a dark horse. He is one of the least likely people to disrupt this genre/industry through success. Simply by looking at the statistics of who becomes successful, chart-topping rappers, we can see that it's very unlikely for a white guy to be successful at this level.

Regarding color, I think you're at least a decade late. Eminem released The Slim Shady LP in 1999. Then you got Beastie Boys, Aesop Rock, El-P, Atmosphere, etc.

By 1999 Beastie Boys had 5 LPs under their belt

Yeah, Beastie Boys are huge, but Eminem is a superstar.

I'm just pointing out what the perception might be which caused the author to pick that headline. Plus, really you can only pick a handful of successful white rappers, for the level of success we're talking about here. Black rappers are far and away the majority.

Let's not forget 3rd Bass, Cypress Hill, House of Pain, etc. White rappers have been around forever; to act like they're some sort of new or even remotely rare phenomenon is kind of silly at this point.

White rappers aren't exactly some crazy, new phenomenon. Vanilla Ice, Eminem, Everlast, The Beastie Boys, MC Frontalot, etc, several of them have been hugely popular. I don't think mentioning race is useful.

It's relevant because he likely wouldn't have been signed and promoted in the recording industry of yesteryear.

When I saw the headline I guessed Macklemore so from an information theoretic sense it helped me out. Although I'm a face recognition researcher who has written ethnicity detectors so maybe I'm biased.

No. The rap industry especially especially embraced blogs long before Macklemore got his number 1 hit. In fact, now it's become routine for major labels and artists to seed music and do releases through blogs. These same blogs push unsigned hype and labels respond by signing these artists for a major debut.

Drake is probably made the best use of the internet and blog to grow his stock and ignite a bidding war among majors. Many people speculated that he could remain independent and still be successful. He opted to sign to a major and he's now a superstar. The relationship between artists and labels has shifted for a long time.

From what I know, Macklemore made use of the internet in a way that's more or less routine nowadays. I'm not going to take away from him hitting #1, but the dynamics between a label and artists have been different for a long time

You're right that his use of the internet wasn't new, but I think you're seriously downplaying the significance of this.

The difference is, before now, the record companies could still say, "Sure, that internet stuff might be really useful...but no one, in the history of ever, has made a number one hit without the help of a label. You need us."

Macklemore just became the first example that an independent musician can point to and say, "He did it independently, and so can I." Who knows, maybe if Drake had had that example, he wouldn't have signed that contract.

Indeed. The "don't you want to be REALLY rich and famous?" and "don't you want to be heard on the radio?" FUD has been a pretty powerful selling point to up and coming artists, I think.

The fact that there are so many examples of successful musicians doing it a different way only helps at the point where someone is trying to counter-sell, but for obvious reasons there aren't roving gangs of salesmen out there pressuring artists to go it alone. In order to make a big dent in the nature of the industry there needs to be a shift in the popular perception of how one succeeds in the music industry, and this sort of thing can have a big impact on that.

Okay, I can see your point.

I think it's important to note that labels still have a much larger promotional push than going indy does. If we run with the Drake example, I think he would have easily gone #1 without them, but I don't think he could have become a household name or gone on worldwide tours without the support of big business.

The original post suggested that artists would leave labels. I still think this is more or less another data point that suggests a more balanced artist-label relationship, and not a massive tipping point. But I realize it could be - it's just something i'd have to wait and see

In the past few years this has been happening a lot when it comes to rap. A lot of artist have been powered by the internet, gain a big following, but then they end up signing up to a major label. Drake, Soulja Boy, ASAP Rocky, Odd Future, etc. So far this guy has signed to no one and was able to break out the internet only sphere and get to the top of the charts.

I hope this happens more often. I am not anti corporate by a long shot but the labels have gotten worse not better since the days of Napster. Doing it this way an artist is able to make money but still avoid the dreaded 360 deal.

link for anyone else curious what a 360 deal is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal

OF's deal is way different than those others though, it was basically a 2 album deal and the label has to more or less stay away from what I understand. Probably more like the deal Wu-Tang signed in the early 90's. Even though Wu-Tang was technically signed to a label, the only rights the label had was basically to make money off them because none of the rappers individually or as groups were bound by the deal. Of course I may be misinformed.

I agree with you about OF's deal being similar to Wu Tangs. My main point was that in the end they did sign and on a side note I think they are a group that really did not have to. I think they might have less buzz now than they did when they were independent.

One of their songs on The Heist is about being offered a record deal by Jimmy Iovine (head of interscope), but it being more like a loan and thus turning it down.

TRUE FANS! [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fan...]

This song in really interesting in two ways.

It was most likely made for close to nothing with a laptop, Protools/Logic and a mic. And secondly and more important the song is all about going thrift shopping and being thrifty!

    I'm gonna pop some tags
    Only got twenty dollars in my pocket
    I - I - I'm hunting, looking for a come-up
    This is f[*]cking awesome

He can record a song for close to $0, he can connect with his 1,000+ true fans directly for $0 and when someone torrents his songs he doesn't care because he is so thrifty that an extra $20 when 1 out of 10,000 who listen to his song go to his show he is syked.

He can record a song for close to $0

That's a lot of speculating for us to agree with you on. A laptop capable of that costs $2000, the software is $200 (Logic) - $600 (Pro Tools). The monitors, room, headphones, plugins, etc to create the sound is another $2,000+ minimum.

The sound on that record is not what someone does is a bedroom w/ a laptop and headphones - trust me. I'm sitting here listening on $3000 monitors in a well treated recording studio and the sound is killer. You do not get crisp, clear sound like that if you are mixing on headphones or crappy "speakers" in an untreated room.

Headphones go a long way, but according the to artist it was recorded and mixed in a 500 sqft studio they built. Looks like acoustic foam on the walls, a decent mic, monitors, protools, used rack equipment, etc. Probably close to $5k, but nothing compared to a big label studio.

[ http://blog.kexp.org/2012/07/19/macklemore-ryan-lewis-releas... ]

Nice - I dig that. But sorry - you're way off on that estimate of $5000. I see some stellar gear there - $2500 API channel strip, $3200 Tube Tech compressor, $3500 Neumann U87 mic, $2000 laptop, $600 monitor, $4000 Neve Portico EQs (I think), (2) Empirical Labs Distressors ($2000 ea). That's the gear you see and that I recognize. There's probably another $500 in cabling, $200 in stands, and I'd assume there's a desktop computer in there too ($2500 worth, I bet). And then there's the plugins you don't see - a reverb plugin, for sure, along with more EQs and compression. Probably a mastering plugin too. Call it $1500 worth of plugins. And the monitors - those look like Adam A7xs which are $1500/pr. Oh and $200 worth of headphones. And the instruments - no way that they have less than $1000 invested there. And the acoustic treatment - not less than $300 but probably not more than $1000. And the other things in there cost money too - studio desks are special b/c they can't vibrate when loud noise/bass is present (so you aren't using a $100 craigslist desk w/o some serious re-tooling). Studio racks (for the rack gear), instrument stands, etc.

I lost count of the total but it's probably safe to say that the gear/room pictured in that video is a multiple of $5000.

This guy right here...he knows his stuff.

But... but... they bought it all at the Thrift Shop!

(I know, I know....)

I stand corrected. That being said, the point I was trying to make is that even if they spent $10k or $25k on studio equipment buying all new gear they still sold 254,000 albums to date.

They probably could have made this with an Apogee Mic and nobody would have known the difference.

But now he can ebay all that hardware with a signature of authenticity or something and probably make 200% of their money back.

I don't know why more bands don't do that, resell value on good mics is pretty good. Use Kickstarter to buy some mics and preamps and sell them when you're done!

That's just not true. In fact, I wouldn't agree with a single statement you just made. An Apogee mic is good but there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear. For you to say that a $200 mic would have achieved the same results is just utter crap. If that was the case, no one would use a professional studio and, instead, would buy said $200 MiC and be done with it.

And wait - you think that his fans, the ones paying $0.99 for the song, are going to pay $40,000 for his gear? Sheesh - I have to believe that you're just talking to hear yourself talk at that point.

The resell value on mics is no different than anything else except in one regard: it's much, much harder to tell fakes in mics, and it's much harder to detect problems in mics than it is with other gear. With a guitar, it's easy - does it play well, stay in tune, feel good, and have no scratchy pots? Then it's good. With an amp, does it sound good? Is it loud? Any scratchy pots? When you tap the tubes, are any microphonic? But with a mic - it's much trickier. You pretty much have to send it to the manufacturer for them to tell you whether it is "right".

That being said, buying and selling used microphones is the way to go for most hobbyists. You can buy said Neumann U87 for $2500 used thus potentially saving $1000. As long as it doesn't need to be reconditioned, you've done well.

He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference". I'm listening to the song on my macbook right now, there is no way I could tell the difference on this thing, ditto to most people.

He didn't say "and achieve the same results" he said "and nobody could tell the difference".

I'm sorry but I don't really understand the difference between the two. Can you elaborate?

swap out "nobody could" for "most people couldn't" and it makes more sense.

This guy is there with a good, expensive, microphone. He records it, putting the signal through cables, pre-amps, amps, mixers, software of various types. Eventually it gets encoded to whatever he's releasing his music as.

Someone downloads that.

Most people do not have monitors or studio quality headphones. Most people have bog standard mass produced headphone drivers (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of them are made in the same factory) - eg skull candy or urbanears. And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer. They might have been playing with the filters to give it more bass.

So, really, are those listeners going to tell the difference between a good microphone and the Singstar microphones?

And they're using a little mp3 device, or a phone, or their computer.

Or they go to clubs, where a poorly mastered track will sound awful. Plus people who really love music can tell, and those are the people who popularize it. A poorly mastered track will be more irritating than exciting to them, and they won't introduce it to their friend at the radio station, or put it on their music blog, remix a club version, or play it at their next DJ gig.

Just because a low quality track might sound okay on the cheap equipment of the masses doesn't mean it is socially capable of getting there. It needs to have merit to make it.

It was a lot nicer when the dollar was strong and I got a pair of brand new TLM-170s off musiciansgear for $2500. The $1300 pair of KM-140s was nice, too. Those were the days, I guess.

>there's a reason he used a $3500 mic + $20,000 more in gear.

I agree completely. It's called superstition. : )

The days of needing 20k in outboard gear are gone. They've been gone for a really, really long time.

Audio Engineering, an industry of which I've been working professionally in for 5 years now, has by far, one of the most backward, superstitious, and anti-science populations I've ever had the misfortune of working with. The more expensive the gear, and the higher the numbers, the more some poor sap will just NEED it before he can produce good cuts.

"Science can't measure what I'm hearing" - 90% of audio engineers when discussing over-priced gear.

While I agree that a <$200 microphone probably won't cut it if you're going for a up-front, nuanced vocal, I do firmly believe a 3.5k microphone being overkill. Put someone in a good room, with a decent mic, and a good engineer, and no one will ever know that a U-87 wasn't used. If you opt for the digital, modeled version of the API 2500, rather than the hardware version, what happens? Song ruined? Audiophiles won't buy the record out of spite? Nope. Those tiny, tiny, tiny, details are completely irrelevant.

Listen to the shootouts on gearslutz. It's a crap shoot as to whether or not people can distinguish between the true analog recording, or its modeled brethren. Further, it's never a matter of one being better than the other, it just that one is slightly "different."

So my point being, I don't necessarily agree with your premise that great gear is needed for good results. 20k single channel compressors are nothing but hog-wash. A simple ABX test would show it.

> They probably could have made this with an Apogee Mic and nobody would have known the difference.

I highly doubt that. Every single microphone is different and the high end mics (Neumann, Schoeps, AKG, even the Shure SM-7) all have unique tonal characteristics that make them desirable for different types of recordings. Vocals will sound noticeably different through a shitty integrated USB microphone than they will through a $25k U47 connected to an API or Neve preamp.

I love my SM7's I get to use at my radio studio. Gorgeous warm tone. I'm stuck with some 58's at home though :(

That's an excellent breakdown - you have a much better eye for the equipment than I do. Total bill looks around $30,000. Rent is probably $800/mo for the 36 months they took to record, so there's another ~ $30k. The total is expensive for a hobby, but within startup finances. This was the first studio album by this artist but not the first album, so this compares well to a bootstrapped startup.

What do you make of the idea that you should mix to sound good the way your audience will listen to it?

That's a silly notion. You mix to sound good on all devices, not just one (headphones). A high quality and experienced mix engineer will spend sometimes years developing his/her ears and learning the room acoustics and learning their monitors' responses. This allows them to use 1-3 pairs of monitors in their studio that they know will "translate" (which means "that will sound good on any device"). Room acoustics and monitoring are a science, not an art, so this is easy stuff that anyone can do regardless of budget.

Guys on a budget, however, will get one pair of monitors/headphones, do their mix, and go listen to that mix in lots of environments - cars, home stereos, beat boxes, etc. They'll hear how it sounds outside of the studio then they'll come back and make adjustments. This is how you "learn your monitors" - you are trying to learn about "500hz sounds too low in the studio but, if I bump up 500hz in the EQ, it sounds fine in the studio but then it gets muddy anywhere else". This is just how you do it.

I would like to point out that there is a lower limit to budget mixing, of course - when the equipment fails to translate any noticeable change, even if you're sweeping the parameter a great deal and listening carefully. At that point you have a problem.

Not to mention the amount of time it takes to write, produce, and mix.

Seattle has a very vibrant music community. I'm sure that if you were an emerging artist that had something good up your sleeve you could convince studios to record you and then mix it yourself on a buddy's computer. Networking helps.

Lisa Loeb also did it. http://www.merrimackhall.com/lisaloeb.html

I winced when the guy hedged by saying "in modern history" — remembering this doesn't make me that old.

When I read the article I had in the back of my mind that this had been done before but I could not remember who. Thanks for the reminder. Her song was introduced to people because of the movie Reality Bites. This song going number one I will take as a positive thing because it shows the still growing influence of the internet.

Oh, agreed entirely that it's apples and oranges. Reality Bites was a Universal movie, the soundtrack was on RCA, and they put five tracks on MTV. It was very much top-down.

Now these guys, on the other hand...

When Lisa Loeb hit #1 in 1994, less than 50% of Americans approved of Black-White marriages. Maybe 1994 really isn't modern.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-...

Absolutely perfect.

Too Short is the original hustler. Like his music or not, 50,000 records and tapes SOLD (literally, not digital, send a link to a friend). That's not counting copying, which a lot of people I knew did from the record or a friends cassette tape. Takes guts to hop out on the block and get people to listen to your music.

IMO, this is the real threat that the record labels/RIAA etc have been worrying about when they go on about piracy.

They've realised for some time that they have little to offer to artists these days as far as promotion or distribution are concerned. So the only way that they can attempt to stay relevant is to create a big bad guy (in the shape of piracy) that can only be stopped by huge organisations with huge banks of lawyers. Their repeated suing of fans has not really been to send a message to the pirates - it's been to send a message to the artists - "Get rid of us, and piracy will destroy you".

I don't think they have much to fear at all, they simply need to re-invent themselves.

Artists are no longer driving from state to state with their trunk full of CDs and tapes. They can now distribute on their websites. However, marketing is still the same online as offline. The big bucks will still win in the long run because they will have access to massive marketing deals.

Distribution is just one part of the game.

Now don't get me wrong, I am for free distribution of culture. I'm just speaking my mind here.

A few years back I found all kinds of cool new music through the star ratings of cover tunes on YouTube along with the number of viewers. Now I notice that it's much harder to find the non-music industry covers, the stars are gone, and you can only see the number of likes and dislikes when you click on the video and it's a lot rarer for me to find something new and cooler just by browsing and searching YouTube. The tradeoff is that we see many fewer takedowns.

This isn't new. This has been happening for a while.

Whether or not you love or hate the music, hip hop is one of the most meritocratic facets of the music industry. Look at Kendrick Lamar, Drake, Kanye West -- all people who got their starts on the blogosphere.

All those guys were heavily promoted by Big Music though, the new thing is that aside from a spot in the Freshman class at XXL (which is probably a huge negative in 2013), Macklemore is almost entirely an internet phenomenon and unlike everyone else you named is completely unaffiliated with Big Music. The point is not that blogs are popular, it's the degree to which they are popular.

For all intents and purposes, blogs are pretty much affiliated with big music now though. And for what it's worth, Drake was only really affiliated with big music after he made it big on his own. Even when he was (allegedly) promoted by big music without being signed, that was in a bid to win build him and win him over.

While I agree that an entirely internet phenomenon is a bit different, I don't think it's a unique case. Macklemore just happens to be exemplifying an extreme case of a trendthat's been going on for a while.

Kanye was a producer for Roc-a-Fella before blogs were even a thing.

RapGenius is also a big factor in the meritocratic rise of quality hip-hop. A track like Kendrick Lamar's Keisha's Song[1] would have been inaccessible and quickly discarded by a human like myself had it not been for the RapGenius page[2] for that track.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpX--7xb2IA [2] http://rapgenius.com/Kendrick-lamar-keishas-song-her-pain-ly...

While some of the rappers you mentioned were noticed in the blogosphere, the point is that they didn't remain unsigned. That is a big difference. Drake did not become a household name until signing with Cash Money.

Kanye West was actually the opposite. He was in the music business and had a lot of connections for quite awhile before going solo. The internet just helped to make him more popular as a solo artist.

Well, Drake was pretty popular in Canada since he was an actor on the TV show Degrassi.

That is true. I forgot the Degrassi connection.

This guy is incredible! Actually rapping about things that matter. Seems trivial but it's a huge undertaking. Applaud and support the effort. Will keep buying

> This guy is incredible! Actually rapping about things that matter.

to you..

In any case, rapping about social issues rather than how much money and women he can collect. Sure, he's got for fun songs like Thrift Shop, but his music is creating awareness of active social issues.

Otherside, about drug abuse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDQy53eldY

Same Love, about gay rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

Thank you! I thought I had seen Otherside somewhere. Since it was a bit back, I never would have equated such an emotional / well produced song with the same artist as Thrift Shop (also exceptionally produced, but such a different emotive affect).

I'm always interested in when artists can "recreate" quality versus a single one-and-done, i.e. can they continually output "hits" versus just a singular confluence (luck, the right creative spot, a band member, who knows).

like thrift shops?

He might be referring to another one of his songs, "Same Love"... sampling of lyrics:

  If I was gay, I would think hip-hop hates me
  Have you read the YouTube comments lately
  "Man, that’s gay" gets dropped on the daily
  We become so numb to what we’re saying
  A culture founded from oppression
  Yet we don’t have acceptance for ‘em
  Call each other faggots behind the keys of a message board
  A word rooted in hate, yet our genre still ignores it
  Gay is synonymous with the lesser
  It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion
  Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
  The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins
  It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference!
  Live on and be yourself
  When I was at church they taught me something else
  If you preach hate at the service those words aren’t anointed
  That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned
  When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless
  Rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen
  I might not be the same, but that’s not important
  No freedom till we’re equal, damn right I support it

Gay rights (Same Love - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0)

What shoes you wear are not important (Wing$ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA) I know this doesn't seem important, but just listen. It is heart retching.

Did you grow up in a place where what shoes you wear is considered important? Or that gays were considered second class citizens?

I'm curious because I did and I suspect his music won't reach those kinds of audiences. He seems like a "preaching to the choir" kind of issues musician. Which is fine, it's hard to reach people who aren't inherently your audience. But I also think if you're a musician and you know you're talking to a certain audience and your message is political, it's a higher bar for your message to be political and meaningful.

This guy is from Seattle, if he's talking about gay rights and what shoes you should wear, that's kind of an easy target for a region like the pacific NW. It kind of becomes a critique of people who aren't like you rather than a message that we can be a better culture. There's a real danger of the message becoming "the burden of improving society is on those of you who aren't already as thoughtful as I am."

I disagree he seems pretty close to the issues he discusses, or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying?

From Wings: "And then my friend Carlos’ brother got murdered for his fours"

And in Same Love he talks about how his Uncle is gay.

In 2008 he was in rehab for drug/alcohol abuse.

> Did you grow up in a place where what shoes you wear is considered important? Or that gays were considered second class citizens?

Seattle and the Pacific NW is a big place. Certainly, it's more liberal on average than most other regions in the US, but I would be wary making wide assumptions.

For instance, I went to college at Evergreen, in Olympia. While the city itself was exceedingly liberal, it wasn't uncommon to drive out to surrounding areas and see signs on someone's property disparaging homosexuals, liberals or what have you.

Granted, though, his audience (as in, his fans) are prone to agree with him. However that holds true for most artists. We always self-select based on our tastes.

> But I also think if you're a musician and you know you're talking to a certain audience and your message is political, it's a higher bar for your message to be political and meaningful.

This is a fair point. I'm (genuinely) curious : what are some artists who you feel have conveyed a political message, either outside their fan base or who have in some other way met that high bar?

I suppose, thinking out loud, that Bob Dylan or John Lennon come to mind, partly based on the sheer circulation and relative timelessness of their work.

"I'm hunting, looking for a come-up. This is f*ing awesome."

So deep I can't even see you anymore.

On a serious note though, I don't need these lyrics to be deeply philosophical, it rocks even rapping about grandpa's clothes.

Try Same Love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

Maybe not "deep" but a lot of his lyrics are social commentary.

If you want clever lyrics about topics other than drugs, wealth, and cards, might I suggest MC Frontalot or Abdominal? Heck, even MC Lars is better.

http://frontalot.com/ http://mcabdominal.com/ http://mclars.com/site/

Better than... ? Why even put that. Macklemore is the amazing, no need to act like your opinion of music is better. If you want some amazing and positive lyricists check out Little Brother, Blu & Exile, Louis Logic and Brother Ali as well.

I've never heard anything of Macklemore's aside from Thrift Shop so my statement was too general. But I wasn't saying that my music tastes were better than anyone's--that's ridiculous: they're just my opinions. I think Thrift Shop wasn't particularly clever compared to the artist I listed. I was communicating some other artists that I liked, just like you did.

In your own tastes, you rank some music as better than others right?

Yup, absolutely.

But how can we have a conversation if you've never even listened to any of his other stuff? Thrift shop is his one-off single, and not nearly as full of meaning his other stuff. You said "heck, even [...] is better", saying you think those artists are "better" than him, and now knowing you hadn't even listened it seems you just wanted a chance to show off some guys you like. Fair enough, just no need to hate at the same time is all I was saying.

I'm loving MC Frontalot! Thanks for the pointer.

Rap has been politically conscious from pretty much day 1, day 3 at the very latest.

This. Painting Macklemore as a trailblazer for being politically conscious is absurd or sheltered.

I think his work is commendable on several grounds, but it's not in being a pioneer of progressive or political hip hop.

Ugh.

From Macklemore's single White Privilege:

> Now I don't rap about guns so they label me conscious > But I don't rap about guns cause I wasn't forced into the projects > See I was put in the position where I could chose my options > Blessed with the privilege that my parent's could send me to college

Pretty much everyone in hiphop is rapping about things that matter. You probably just don't like a lot of black hiphop.

Along these lines, I like what Talib Qweli said about Lil Wayne http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbmTj-u1LMg

> Actually rapping about things that matter.

There are a lot of rappers (black, white, filipino, chinese) that rap about these things. One of my favourite mainstream artists is Common who has managed to avoid gun and gang culture and produced a few conscious songs that also were club bangers.

It's a great example of a community's positive impact on an individual, in this case, Seattle's hiphop collective and Macklemore.

A lot of great artists are coming out the Northwest and I hope they'll earn recognition they deserve.

As a white middle-class male who never listens to rap (I was a classical nerd in HS), I find _The Heist_ an enjoyable album. Go figure. It's available for streaming on Spotify. I'd recommend a listen.

If you enjoy it on Spotify, please consider buying the CD. The amount of money independent artists make through spotify is pennies per month compared to the money they would make if you bought the CD.

To use as wall decoration?

To support the artist. Dump the disc in the trash if you want.

I would rather give money via a donate link in that case.

The point is that spotify practically doesn't pay artists.

Buying some useless plastic that goes in the trash in order to support an artist is really flawed logic, and if a musician is still relying on that method then they are setting themselves up for a sad, obviously losing battle.

You might as well donate to a kickstarter campaign, or buy a poster or something. Go to the concerts. Anything. But this expectation that fans are going to buy useless outdated junk in order to show their support is a nostalgic pipe dream

I think you are being a bit dramatic. You can buy the digital download from iTunes, Amazon, etc.

Why not buy it on iTunes?

Does the artist not offer direct downloads, whereby receiving 100% of profits? (CC charges/hosting etc aside).

I would advise that you dig a little deeper, and check out some of the other underground hip hop stalwarts, you may be surprised by how musically creative and lyrically talented some of these people are. In fact, it's got to the point where a lot of the artists in that space are now middle-aged and are making quite mature hip-hop (as a genre it's pretty young so this is the first generation of artists to get to this stage)

If you like The Heist, checking out Macklemore's earlier effort (sans Ryan Lewis) "The Language of My World", is probably a good place to start. It's got a little less polish but a whole lot of heart.

Other people definitely worth checking: Atmosphere, Eyedea & Abilities, Blackalicious, Jurassic 5, US3, Hilltop Hoods, Desa, P.O.S, Ugly Duckling, Shad, Abdominal.

Music video for Thrift Shop. Enjoy. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

Not sure of the exact timing, but I thought Crank That (Soulja Boy) was #1 before he got signed (after getting popular on YouTube/MySpace).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulja_Boy

Drake comes to mind as well.

They're both not white, as the title of this post suggests.

There are a LOT of artists these days who are not on labels and doing quite well. This guy may be the first to reach #1 on the charts but I think its a stretch to suggest he single handedly changed the record industry

An unsigned artist reaching #1 may single-handedly change the record industry.

With a beat like that, any song would be #1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes

Awful rapper, but that beat is amazing... Reminds me of a slightly more trappy Neptunes.

EDIT: Awful was maybe too much, sorry to the fans. I explain my opinion in a later comment.

Out of ignorant curiosity, what makes him awful (in the negative sense)?

I also think he's awful and I would say it's mostly because of his lyrical content. It's a pretty common problem with indie rappers, it's hard to walk the line between "I'm not mainstream and I don't rap about drugs and cars" and "I'm really smug because I don't rap about drugs and cars and I love to recycle." I don't really care about drugs and cars but when I listen to music I don't want to feel like the artist is trying to impress with with how good a person he is.

people who define themselves only by what they aren't are wack

OK, I'll grant that on a few songs the guy is practically preaching, but if you're getting that out of Thrift Shop I really think you need to turn the sensitivity meter way down. Other than the $50-for-a-T-shirt line, this song could just as easily be a mockery of thrift shops as a sincere ode to them.

IMO that's what great about the song... thrifting is a complex balance between "value" on the one hand and straight-up "cheapness" on the other and he walks the line the whole song with one funny zinger after another. The touch of sincerity at the end ensures that we know it's not just typical rapper "I'm richer than you" mockery and we close it out with a little fun. In this song, I just don't know what you're seeing.

I'm not getting that from Thrift Shop, I like Thrift Shop, I think the rest of the album is preachy.

Awful was too much. Should have said average. Also, I'm judging him from this song only.

His main problem is the simple rhyme schemes. His lines are basically long sentences that rhyme at the end. He also frequently makes long pauses (a criminal offense in hiphop, IMO).

Allow me the use of a simple example to show you the difference between him and an amazing MC (rhymes are marked as -):

> Macklemore:

I call that getting tricked by a business, that shirt's -hella dough-

And having the same one as six other people in this club is a -hella don't-

Peep game, come take a look through my -telescope-

Trying to get girls from a brand? Then you -hella won't-

> Nas:

It ain't hard to -tell-, I -excel- then -prevail-

The mic is contacted, I attract -clientele-

My mic check is -life or death-, breathing a -sniper's breath-

I exhale the yellow smoke of buddha through -righteous steps-

Deep like the -Shining-, sparkle like a -diamond-

Sneak a Uzi on the -island- in my army jacket -lining-

Hit the Earth like a comet –invasion-!

Nas is like the Afrocentric -Asian-, half-man, half--amazing-

Cause in my physical I can -express- through -song-

Delete -stress- like -Motrin-, then -extend- -strong-

I drink Moet with Medusa, give her shotguns in -hell-

From the -spliff- that I -lift- and -inhale-, it ain't hard to -tell-

---

Also note the abundance of alliterations in Nas' quote.

EDIT: fixed formatting

EDIT2: couldn't resist doing the whole verse for Nas. Illmatic is so good...

Here's a pretty good YouTube video I've found that explains what separates the great rappers from the average rappers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miIxNCn-vjY

That's, at best, one thing that can separate good writers from average writers. Great rappers don't necessarily need to have complex rhyme schemes, and a complex rhyme scheme does not a great rapper make. Neither does a complex rhyme scheme alone make a great writer, as content and the use of various literary devices come into play as well.

IMHO, the mark of a truly great rapper is the ability to become an instrument on the track while still communicating a great deal in a small number of words. Flow and presence are as important as lyrics and rhyme schemes, and a great rapper is one who has at least 3 out of those 4 qualities at a high level, with the 4th not bad enough to detract from the others.

I tend to think you're kind of cherry picking his lyrics to support your point here: 4 lines of Macklemore versus 12 of Nas. There's plenty of internal rhymes and alliteration in: Rollin' in, hella deep, headin' to the mezzanine,

Dressed in all pink, 'cept my gator shoes, those are green

Draped in a leopard mink, girls standin' next to me

Probably shoulda washed this, smells like R. Kelly's sheets (Piiisssssss)

But shit, it was ninety-nine cents! (Bag it)

Coppin' it, washin' it, 'bout to go and get some compliments

Passin' up on those moccasins someone else's been walkin' in

And honorable mention for this: Your grammy, your aunty, your momma, your mammy I’ll take those flannel zebra jammies,

Saying "it's awful because it's not Illmatic" makes no sense; plenty of people would say Illmatic is the best hip-hop album of all time. So not living up to that standard doesn't make it awful.

> I tend to think you're kind of cherry picking his lyrics to support your point here: 4 lines of Macklemore versus 12 of Nas.

I initilly had just 6 Nas lines (which were comparable in number of words to Macklemore's 4). Regarding cherry picking, I honestly picked 4 random lines. I don't have the time to do a full statistical analysis, although that would be really interesting.

> Saying "it's awful because it's not Illmatic" makes no sense; plenty of people would say Illmatic is the best hip-hop album of all time. So not living up to that standard doesn't make it awful.

Fair enough. In my defense, I did upgrade from "awful" to "average".

I think that's just being unreasonably pedantic -- I enjoy the Macklemore song, and couldn't give a darn about the Nas song.

I have no problem with that. Quality is subjective, love is subjective, technical ability isn't.

Listening to It Ain't Hard to Tell and Thrift Shop I can unequivocally hear a difference in the style and flow, where I could understand why you'd say Nas has more talent as a rapper.

However, I find the Macklemore song more enjoyable precisely for the reasons that make him a bad rapper stylistically. Looking at the lines from each you've quoted, other than the 3rd line from Macklemore I immediately get exactly what he's communicating in the song. Nas's song is much more like a poem, I understand the metaphors and get the general gist of the song after reading your lyrics, but on a quick listen I wouldn't have much of an idea of what the song is even about.

Maybe it's just a storytelling vs. poem artistic difference. Or maybe Macklemore is just more approachable for casual listeners who aren't really that connected to hip hop.

Man now I wanna know if there are any rappers out there exploring other modes of poetry. Someone doing the alliteration and kennings that make up the backbone of Beowulf, or the tight syllabic constraints of a haiku, instead of rhyme...

The worst part, in my opinion, is the refrain/chorus/hook/whatever; it sounds really stilted, especially the "po-cket". The last line is a non sequitur; why is only having $20 awesome, enough to warrant an expletive? Then there's the missed opportunity to rhyme "pop some tags" with "20 dollars in my bag" or something to that effect, rather than "pocket".

Maybe I just don't understand rap. :)

They're totally different styles of flow.

I find Macklemore's flow to be much closer to a prose spoken word style of flow than someone like Nas, Eminem, or Jay-Z. It's tough, perhaps misleading, to compare given that.

"Awful rappers" don't make it to the top of the charts, especially unsigned ones. I think it's safe to say your opinion on his abilities to rap are in the minority.

Awful rappers make it to the top of charts on a regular basis. Rap music sells because of the beat and, to a lesser extent, the hook. Macklemore isn't awful, but as rappers go he's nothing too special. His hustle should be admired as should his ear for beats.

topping a chart requires a plurality not a majority. 98.9% of people could hate him with every fiber of their being and he'd still top, as long as their votes were evenly distributed across 99 other songs.

I don't disagree I just don't see how this means he could be "awsful". I think "awful" is an awfully sensational word for describing someone who is famous, playing on the radio, makes it to #1, and isn't even signed. Awful is me trying to rap.

I'd hardly call him awful...... then again, Bob Dylan is an "awful" singer compared to Clay Aiken, but his lyrics make for great songs that speak to the listener at a deeper level. Does he have the speed of Eminem, or the flow of Lil' Wayne? No, but he doesn't have to.

Steve Vai is a fantastic guitarist, but his music BLOWS. I would way rather listen to someone who isn't quite as talented in delivery but creates, on the whole, superior music.

Bob Dylan vs. Clay Aiken, the showdown!

I'm curious how he was able to become so popular so quickly. What music blogs promoted his album? Did he already have relationships with the blogs or did he just submit his album like everyone else and the quality spoke for itself?

I think it spread because the song is just so catchy, the video is quite quirky and weird, and so it's really just something that's likely to be shared casually. Very established social-networking sites enable even quicker sharing and spreading of these videos than just a few years ago. Same deal as Gangnam Style pretty much.

A catchy song that does well on hypem and then gets picked up by the blogosphere. It's all about how the artist markets themselves from there.

He worked his arse off for years and had a huge following before this album launched. This was his biggest song before The Heist was released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWhx-CtPmBU (story about addiction and his struggle to overcome it). When The Heist launched he emailed/tweeted/blogged his fans and got enough of a response to hit #1 on iTunes in <24 hrs. I saw him perform about 3 years ago in Bellingham, Washington so this overnight success story involved a lot of hard work to accomplish.

I heard he's never negative.

What I love about Macklemore is that he puts a lot of heart and soul into his lyrics. It's something you see with Peyton Manning in football, Kobe Bryant in BBall. You can just tell he loves what he does.

For example, in Make the Money is about following your passion, not for the money but because you love what you do. With this mindset, the money will come.

A lot of us in the tech/startup industry can relate to this. Follow the money and most startups fail.

I like to believe that there's always room at the top of any industry for people who really have a superior talent. I have to say, their boot-strapped scrappiness does give them a little special cred for me, but mostly, I just love their music. Their song, "Thrift Shop" is a trifecta, great tune, great lyrics, great social commentary.

Also, bonus points for their ability to describe odors. "Smells like R-Kelly's Sheets."

My ignorance may be showing, but this article seems a tad hyperbolic. As mentioned by others Lisa Loeb also had a #1 (nearly 20 years ago!) while she was unsigned. Is Macklemore really a harbinger of things to come? Or an outlier, an aberration that appears once in a generation? I suppose time will tell. But the article builds a mountain of expectations from the success of a single artist.

That's a fair point, I would note though that when Loeb hit #1 it was as part of a movie soundtrack that (with all due respect to Loeb) she probably would not have been included on if she wasn't friends with Ethan Hawke. She then went out and got signed to release her debut album.

This isn't entirely unique, but I do think it's a product of changing technology/culture which is interesting and novel in many ways.

Love this guy. He's even got a song about Malcolm Gladwell and the 10,000 hours stuff (that I wrote about a bit ago.)

Without "knowing" rap, and only listening to _The Heist_, he seems to border more on a satirical Weird Al type of line, rather than being someone that true rap fans would necessarily enjoy.

Regardless, it had a good message, delivered in a funny way, and I enjoyed it. Happy to see this guy succeeding without help from the man.

> true rap fans

Oh no, please don't do that! :)

> Regardless, it had a good message, delivered in a funny way, and I enjoyed it.

All is forgiven; you're not trying to stir. If you like that kind of cleverness and satire then you might enjoy DJ Format. It's older stuff, but still fun.

Heh, true, I should have said "true rap fans" and not true rap fans.

How he changed music? Hardly. Maybe if they follow this up with something substantial but as we've seen in electronic music... you can make hit music and then the labels will sign you.

I like him, his style (to me) is very similar to that of recent music by British artist Plan B, who I also happen to find brilliant.

what's facscinating, and this isn't really proof of anything, but has "Thrift Shop" been getting terrestrial radio airplay?

I can't find it on http://www.z100.com/iplaylist/playlist.html?net=1 (my local pop radio station's playlist)

As two datapoints ...

I first heard it on the local (terrestrial) pop radio station a few days ago. I'm not sure when they started playing it, though. I e-mailed the YouTube video to a friend in Atlanta, and she said that she'd heard it on her pop radio station as well.

I hear it locally in Grand Rapids, MI non-stop. So it is, at least in some areas.

Gets pretty regular play on my local (SF Bay) hit music station: http://997now.cbslocal.com/playlist/

The first time I heard the song was sometime in December on KROQ in LA. I heard it on the radio before I heard about all this internet hype it is getting, but then I don't follow a lot of music blogs.

Down-vote me but his music is commercial. I am saying this as a professional musician. Even the pompous title says it all.. "unsigned white rapper changed music industry". I do not understand how this post gets so many up-votes. Listen to Damu the Fudgemunk for example, a young bright kid who does his thing with Y Society.

Is it bad if I thought this article was going to be about Froggy Fresh?

This should really say "mainstream American commercial music".

United Music Group?! How about Universal Music Group.

he knew how to be different, he subconsciously used the lean methodology

Build, test and measure and maneuvered his way to climb the ladder to be #1

The beginning of the end of copyright. :)

From "Same Love"

"And God loves all his children it's somehow forgotten But we paraphrase a book written 3,500 years ago"

The Bible doesn't really need paraphrasing or eye-squinting to be interpreted as anti-gay, it's pretty clear in that point. I admire Mackelmore's overall sentiment and courage, and I'm not saying it doesn't make sense for a Christian to be anti-gay, but you can't make an uncomfortable part of the legacy of your beliefs go away by pretending it's not there.

"Whatever god you believe in We come from the same one"

Tolerance and unity doesn't often quite extend to atheists, does it?

As someone not religious, I think his point still works. That whatever you do or don't believe, it applies to everyone, thus we all have the same greater origin, be it once specific god or an evolutionary ancestor.

Not Li'l B?

Terrible article.

>How an unsigned white rapper changed music

This is fucking racism. Why does it matter to you if the guy is white/black/tall/short/smart/stupid/dick?

Well, fuck you linkbaits.

Who is it racist against?

Racism is not against someone. It just is.

It doesn't really have much to do with the story, which is why I think the headline has changed on HN.

That being said, it's a headline. It's designed to attract attention. What you call "linkbait," a subeditor calls "doing their job." It's taking an unusual attribute about the subject of the story to highlight their relative scarcity, thus giving more weight to their achievement in changing the industry. It's like saying, "110lb defensive tackle signs to Giants for record sum." Well now I'm even more curious about this kid than I was before. There's nothing wrong with this article to justify a pejorative like "linkbait."

The attribution of something sinister, unpleasant or suspicious to the word "white" is all you.

why is it racism? I think you need to explain this rather rude and baffling comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com